Notice regarding girl’s rape disposed of as challan submitted

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Friday disposed of a notice of kidnapping and assault on a 14-year-old girl by a landlord as the challan has been submitted before the trial court.

The LHC had earlier taken notice on the incident after media reports and had called a report from the district and sessions judge of Faisalabad.

The sessions judge submitted that police had registered a case on the application of the mother of the victim, and that the accused was arrested and sent to judicial lockup.

The challan against the accused had been submitted in the court of the competent jurisdiction, where the case is under trial, the report said.

According to information, the mother of the affected girl, a resident of Chak No 70/RB, submitted an application with the Balochni police that her daughter was coming from her aunt’s house in the evening when accused Chaudhry Abdi Hussain forcefully took her to his mansion and raped her. As the victim cried loud, the accused left her and fled.

The media disclosed that Balochni police registered a case against the accused, but the police were making accusations against the girl instead of arresting the influential accused.

The applicant said that she works in a factory to feed her children and mentally challenged husband.

She also said that litigation with the landlord and meeting the demanded of illegal gratifications by the police were beyond her capacity.

Meanwhile, Justice Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan of the Lahore High Court on Friday, while hearing a petition seeking permission for exhibition of an Indian film ‘Rambo Rajkumar’, directed the attorney general of Pakistan to verify in which country was the film shot.

The judge ordered the AG to submit the verification report until December 12, observing that the exhibition of illegally imported films could not be allowed in Pakistan at any cost.

The judge was hearing a petition by the importer of this film, who submitted that he had fulfilled all legal requirements for the import of the film and there was no restriction for its exhibition in Pakistan, as it was shot in England.

He said that despite all that the censor board was not allowing the exhibition of the film in the country due to a stay order issued by the court against exhibition of illegally imported films.

He requested the court to allow the screening of this film in Pakistan, as the petitioner would suffer an acute loss if the ban was not lifted.

The counsel for the censor board said that the shooting of this film was done in India, and under the law its exhibition in Pakistan could not be allowed.

The judge after hearing the arguments directed the AG to get verified whether the shooting of the film was done in England or India.

Separately, Justice Ayesha A Malik of the Lahore High Court on Friday, while suspending the demotion of 30 sub-inspectors (SIs), directed the inspector general of Punjab Police to decide on the applications of the petitioners regarding giving them an opportunity of personal hearing.

Arshad Bajwa and 29 others moved the petitions challenging their demotion. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the department had demoted his clients without any justification, and that no notice was served on them.

He said that under Article 25 of the constitution, no government employee could be demoted without an opportunity of personal hearing. He said that there was no justification to demote the petitioners. He requested the court to declare the orders of demotion illegal.

Moreover, Justice Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi of the Lahore High Court on Friday reserved verdict on a petition challenging the authority of provincial ombudsman on certain issues.

A lady, Zarqa Khan, had challenged the provincial ombudsman’s orders.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ombudsman had summoned an investigation officer and issued him directions in a case registered against her husband. He said that according to the rules and regulations, the provincial ombudsman could not pass any directions to the police and could not interfere in police investigation, as done in his client’s case. He requested the court to declare illegal the orders passed by the ombudsman and bar him from interfering in police investigation.